Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

You have asked for this.

Its nigh on 2am.

Halse testified he only met people. .and not on the main Road.

No other policeman searching saw a soul.

So "crowded streets"????


Yes. I am serious. Think.

It's bizarre that you put quotes around the phrase "crowded streets" which is something I simply did not say. It's also odd that you refer to Halse's evidence (in which he refers to stopping two people in Wentworth Street but does not say in his written deposition there was no-one on any main road). You didn't say anything about any particular main road and nor did I. At 2am there were plenty of main roads in Whitechapel on a Saturday night/Sunday morning where there lots of people. So I was suggesting that the killer could have headed to such a main road before diverting later to Goulston Street.

What you think I have "asked for", I really have no idea.

[David Orsam]

Look at the performance of the police in Goulston St. No uniform opinion as to content of writing nor placement.

It's true that there was a difference of opinion as to the exact contents of the writing but I'm not aware of any difference of opinion as to placement, which seems to be something conjured up in the overactive imagination of some members of the forum.

[PaulB]

The four old accepted theories surrounding the apron are

1. He took the organs away in it
2. He cut it to clean his knife
3. He cut it to wipe his hands
4. He cut it because he had cut his own hand and wanted a bandage

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
The marks on the apron were apparently consistent with the apron having beeen used by the murderer to wipe his hands or knife. That was the opinion of Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, who, unlike us, actually saw the apron. I am not aware of any good case that Dr. Brown's conclusion was wrong.

I am of course aware of your experiment, but I am sure Dr. Brown was sufficiently experienced to know the difference between the marks that would be left by someone wiping their knife on a cloth and someone wiping hands just taken from inside a corpse. Getting someone to wipe hands just taken fom a corpse was unlikely to reproduce the light staining on one side of the material that Dr. Brown saw, so your experiment, an admirable first-hand experiment, proved only that nobody wiped heavilly blood-covered hands on the apron piece. It did not prove that what Dr. Brown saw was wrong. 2 and 3 have not been disprovedl. Unless you have evidence to the contrary

[Phil Carter]

It's true that there was a difference of opinion as to the exact contents of the writing but I'm not aware of any difference of opinion as to placement, which seems to be something conjured up in the overactive imagination of some members of the forum.

David,

There were at least 6 different versions of the content. At least 4 different versions of places the writing actually was written. All within the same confined area..but different places.
Its all in the police evidence comments.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

It's bizarre that you put quotes around the phrase "crowded streets" which is something I simply did not say. It's also odd that you refer to Halse's evidence (in which he refers to stopping two people in Wentworth Street but does not say in his written deposition there was no-one on any main road). You didn't say anything about any particular main road and nor did I. At 2am there were plenty of main roads in Whitechapel on a Saturday night/Sunday morning where there lots of people. So I was suggesting that the killer could have headed to such a main road before diverting later to Goulston Street.

What you think I have "asked for", I really have no idea.

Scenario. .

I am the carrier of a bloody piece of cloth connecting me to a murder in the immediate vicinity.
It is 01 50. There are few people around.
There are policemen patrolling the area.
Thr main Roads are invariably better lit that the back streets.
I have to "disappear" from the scene..preferably without being noticed.

Do I walk along a better lit street or a dark back street? Where is the greater chance of being seen?. Logic. Quiet..dark street. More chance to hide. More shadow if needed. Not hard to envisage this.

Phil

[PaulB]

Pierre,

Do you mean Pierre or me?

This is a point that shows dead theorising. Not just you. But many over the years.
We look at what we are told and believe it to be true. Look at the performance of the police in Goulston St. No uniform opinion as to content of writing nor placement. So...the police comments on the simplest of evidence is faulty.
Ergo..think outside the box. What if Long is just coceting his backside? Policemen do that. Often.

I am not looking at what we are told and believing it to be true. That's a tired old accusation trotted out by anyone trying to cast doubt on the correct and proper teatment of the sources.

Long may not be telling the whole story.

Long might not have been telling the whole story. On the other hand, Long might acually have told the whole story. I tell you what, why don't you bin all the sources on the grounds that they could be wrong, a lie, unreliable, or whatever you want to claim it might be? That's the way you are heading. As I have said, if you think P.C. Long's story was different to what he said, present some good evidence, not just the possibility that he might have left stuff out.

And while you and others will croak about "sensationalism" etc... I take each comment on their merits. Given the debacle of evidence presented... I dobt HAVE to beliece the police were all that capable of doing their jobs. Warren..Swanson included.

I don't think I have croaked about anything, not yet anyway. And I am glad that you take each comment on its merits, and you don't have to believe anything you don't want to believe, but if you don't have good evidence for what you do believe, you'll probably be alone believing it. Which is fine, of course.

[Phil Carter]

Additionally to my last post.. I may very well have heard the police whistle being blown. I would hear the direction from whence it came. I may even see a policeman or two running towards said area. Ipso facto.. I make my way AWAY from the area without being noticed if possible. I do not run. I do not attract any attention to myself. I may br looking for an alleyway..a ginnel. Failing that. .a dark spot..either to hide until I feel more secure..or if having a destination, to travel to that spot asap but carefully.


Phil

[David Orsam]

There were at least 6 different versions of the content. At least 4 different versions of places the writing actually was written. All within the same confined area..but different places.
Its all in the police evidence comments.

You'll forgive me if I don't accept your numbers. I'm not interested in the content, because I've already accepted that there were differences (although I suspect you are including ridiculous things like different capitalisation in your total of six and ignoring Long's correction), but would you mind providing the four "different versions of places the writing actually was written", with some evidence, please?

[David Orsam]

I am the carrier of a bloody piece of cloth connecting me to a murder in the immediate vicinity.

Erm...and a bloody knife and possibly a woman's recently removed kidney.

[David Orsam]

Do I walk along a better lit street or a dark back street? Where is the greater chance of being seen?. Logic. Quiet..dark street. More chance to hide. More shadow if needed. Not hard to envisage this.

It's not necessarily about "the greater chance of being seen". It could be about the greater chance of being stopped. If there is one man in a small dark street or lots of men in a better lit main road, who has got the greater chance of being stopped?

Because, of course, you could have made your escape along Wentworth Street...and then been stopped by Detective Halse. Drat!

[David Orsam]

Additionally to my last post.. I may very well have heard the police whistle being blown. I would hear the direction from whence it came. I may even see a policeman or two running towards said area. Ipso facto.. I make my way AWAY from the area without being noticed if possible. I do not run. I do not attract any attention to myself. I may br looking for an alleyway..a ginnel. Failing that. .a dark spot..either to hide until I feel more secure..or if having a destination, to travel to that spot asap but carefully.

Please go on with story Phil. Have you ever thought of writing Ripper fiction?

[Phil Carter]

Do you mean Pierre or me?



I am not looking at what we are told and believing it to be true. That's a tired old accusation trotted out by anyone trying to cast doubt on the correct and proper teatment of the sources.



Long might not have been telling the whole story. On the other hand, Long might acually have told the whole story. I tell you what, why don't you bin all the sources on the grounds that they could be wrong, a lie, unreliable, or whatever you want to claim it might be? That's the way you are heading. As I have said, if you think P.C. Long's story was different to what he said, present some good evidence, not just the possibility that he might have left stuff out.



I don't think I have croaked about anything, not yet anyway. And I am glad that you take each comment on its merits, and you don't have to believe anything you don't want to believe, but if you don't have good evidence for what you do believe, you'll probably be alone believing it. Which is fine, of course.

Hello Paul,

Apologies for the name mix up. It certainly was not meant. I wrote without my glasses on! Hehe.

I look at it this way.

I simply do not believe what I have been told to believe. By policemen there and then. .retired policemen afterwards or in some cases, authors. Such is choice.

What I do know is that this series of cases have not..from the time of their happening..until now, hatched any clear answers. We have asked the conventional questions following conventional detection. More often than not..it ends up in a riddle.

So instead..I look at it differently. I look at possibles ..whether less plausible or not.
Therefore.. look at the performance of the police on the Eddowes case. Honestly..it is very poor indeed.
Thetefore I consider a reason why.
Given all the mistakes in thus case.m I look at the Nov 6th report of Swanson..to be passed up the line. No way is that going to reflect badly on his men. So backside covering will be needed if needed.
That applies to the individual policemen too..when giving their statements. If X was really having a cuppa instead of being at position Z.. he will need to cover it up.
If Long saw a suspicious person and fsiled to make chase he would cover his comments. Etc etc


Phil

[Phil Carter]

You'll forgive me if I don't accept your numbers. I'm not interested in the content, because I've already accepted that there were differences (although I suspect you are including ridiculous things like different capitalisation in your total of six and ignoring Long's correction), but would you mind providing the four "different versions of places the writing actually was written", with some evidence, please?

Look it up yourself.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi, again, Trevor. Again, the only thing which has anything to do with body parts is number 1. I know one person who wrote 1., Wickerman.

I know of no source for 2, 3, and 4. Do you? I know that none of these theories 1. to 4. are contained in Scotland Yard Investigates, by Evans & Rumbelow, a book which I know you haven't read, because you told me so on How Brown's site.

I'm not arguing any reason. I've never given a reason for why the killer cut a piece of her apron and took it. I don't have to. Simply the fact everyone from 1888 to today agrees it happened, because it is very clear from the physical evidence at the time. It doesn't need a reason. You are the only one arguing reasons.

You are the only one arguing that if there was no good reason, it didn't happen. Which is the opposite of evidence. The opposite of police work. What you said you did. The evidence is he cut the piece of apron and deposited it in Goulston Street.

You seem to be arguing against yourself Trevor. And believe, me, I'm Okay with that.

Roy

If the killer cut or tore it he must have had a reason to do so. If any of the 4 I mentioned do not apply, then what was the reason? Because I am struggling to think of a plausible one as to why he would cut it or tear it, and why he would then take it away, dumping it an obscure location 9 mins away from the crime scene, when there would be every likelihood that it would never be found, and if it was, would it ever be linked to a murder. Again there is no plausible explanation for the dumping at that location.

Now those two dont sit to well, when it just so happens that this piece of apron was found at that obscure location withing 70 mins of the murder by a police officer who didn't even know a murder had been committed.

Now if you want to talk conspiracies take a closer look at Halse. He went to the crime scene, and so if she had have been in possession of two pieces of apron, what would stop him removing one and taking it off with him depositing in the door way. He then meets Long and says "best check you doorways etc" and voila Long finds the apron piece. thus taking the heat away from the City police.

Far fetched as it may seem you have to remember the letter from Mathews to Frazer asking if the piece could have been removed from the crime scene and deposited in GS. Now that seems to me to be a question out of the blue, and why was it asked? clearly if it was as clear cut as we have been led to believe why would that question be asked, no smoke without fire.!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

It's not necessarily about "the greater chance of being seen". It could be about the greater chance of being stopped. If there is one man in a small dark street or lots of men in a better lit main road, who has got the greater chance of being stopped?

Because, of course, you could have made your escape along Wentworth Street...and then been stopped by Detective Halse. Drat!

Look at a map. Look at the direction Halse took.
Then look to the other end of Goulston St.
Then see when Halse ..at the latest..could have stopped one of his two men he saw (ca. 02.17)

plenty of time to miss Halse if walking towards Wentworth St along Goulston St at about 2am.

Drat indeed.